[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish

[Ryan Lanham]

Hi Michel:

Good points, all.


On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> If you can prove to me that an infinite growth system can survive in a
> finite material system without destroying it, I'll believe  your argument
> that capitalism is eternal, and is not, like all other systems in our human
> history, destined to be transformed. I'm ready to believe our current system
> is indeed exceptional and eternal, if you can argue the first point.
>
> In the meantime, I think the most sensible policy is to divorce markets
> from the infinite growth system.
>

I agree that continued material growth in conventional terms is impossible
at worst, and ill-advised at best.  But continued wealth accumulation is
not.  Wealth can be attained through technologies, free time, etc.  One can
imagine capitalism shifting to a 4 day week, for instance.  Real income
might decrease, but happiness and satisfaction might radically increase.

We have the capacity to build whole cities in Africa with green power where
there will be condos and movie theatres and bars.  Perhaps these will be in
orbit or extend to other planets.  5/6 of the world is the oceans...we
barely know what is beneath them.  One can as easily imagine floating cities
as much as one can imagine post-capitalist frameworks.

>
> Since I believe that  you cannot prove the points above, I think 'eternal
> capitalism' is a lot more utopian than positions that believe that change
> and transformation are eternal.
>
> Eternal is of course a long time.  I'm content to discuss my normal
lifetime or my children's.  My youngest son is 8.  Let's say he lives a
normal and healthy life to...say, 108.  That's another 100 years...2109.
For rounding, I'll talk about the period between now and 2100.  I can easily
imagine in that period a rapid growth of human wealth particularly if
populations are brought under control or even decline slightly as they are
in much of Russo-Europe.



> So, I choose to interpret your arguments not in a metaphysical way as
> above, but simply as a series of observations about the near future, and
> will engage with some practical points you are making inline.
>

Fair enough.

>
>  On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> After some consideration, I've decided that the post-capitalism talk
>> is largely Utopian fantasy:
>>
>> 1. Current financial assets are considerably more than all non-cash assets
>> in the world.  Over the counter derivatives alone in 2007 were over 600
>> trillion USD.  (that's trillion with a T).  The innovation that has been
>> financial markets goes on strong and the wealth created is anything but
>> fictitious.
>>
>
> The current overflow of financial assets is parasitic and is harming the
> productive economy.
>

I couldn't disagree more.  The greatest innovation in history is financial
engineering.  It has unleashed everything from Grameen Bank to diversified
financial money centers that hold politicians in check and assure government
debts and currencies are properly managed.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.
But it is highly successful, employs millions and will grow before it
shrinks.


>
>
>>
>> 2. The total global gross product (GDP of the world in 2007) was about 47
>> trillion USD (almost 14 trillion of that in the USA).  So far in the
>> recession/depression, it has sunk globally by about 2% and certainly not
>> more than 4%.  Total stock market valuations were 51 trillion in 2007 and
>> are perhaps slightly less than that now.
>>
>
>
> Not sure what you point is, but the meltdown is very serious, with most
> economists agreeing 'the worst since WWII, in fact meaning, since 1929. This
> means it is on a par with Sudden System Shock, the end of a long wave, and
> therefore, cannot resume simple growth without major structural reforms.
> These reforms are to my mind in part of a reform of capitalism, and partly
> 'post-capitalist' in nature, since they will necessarily go beyond the
> commodity form, infinite accumulation, the Fordist division of labour and
> many other aspects.
>
>
The meltdown is more than serious...it is catastrophic.  But it isn't the
end of the world.  We've had panics, meltdowns, depressions and all manner
of catastrophes before.  And we've continued.  So has capitalism.

Capitalism hasn't been about commodities since World War II.  Still, there
are lots of things made of sand and graphite that tons of people want.
There are things made of mud and cement that people want.  We have no
serious shortages of steel, bamboo, ocean water, silicon, carbon, soil,
etc.  We can make computers for everyone and software to run on them and
clean power to drive them.  There is huge room for expansion.

>
>> 3. Most of Africa and large portions of Asia including China are still
>> growing.
>>
>
> It all depends when you start counting ... If you start from the 80's:
> Africa's development has been catastrophic, Latin America has stagnated, and
> China has never practiced neoliberal recommendations. In the heart of the
> West, the part going to labour has declined, and working wages have
> stagnated since the 70s.
>
>
I am willing to accept that median wages in the US have been about the same
as they were in 1990, but look what you can buy for those wages...amazing
entertainment, powerful communications, great mobility.  I certainly
wouldn't want to go back to 1970 or 1980 with my same relative pay.  We are
vastly wealthier now.


>
>
>> 4. There are real signs that the green capitalism is starting to take
>> off.  Last year there was more increase in alternative energy production in
>> the US than in all other forms of energy production (including nuclear
>> power.)
>>
>
> Yes, but keeping monopoly IP in this sector could represent a very serious
> problem for continued innovation.
>
> Possibly, but I doubt it.  Monopoliies are relatively rare.  They matter,
yes, but small business has been the dominant sector of employment growth in
the US for a generation.  No reason to think the same will not be true
throughout the world.  We are in the age of small businesses.


>
>
>>
>> 5. Venture Capital has spent 29 billion without production on Web 2.0
>> companies and there have been no bankruptcies.
>>
>
> Happy to see you are turning the argument of John Hagel around!! But there
> is still a value crisis in this sector. However, I think it can be resolved
> and the solutions will be part of the next long wave.
>

Agreed.


>
>
>
>>
>> 6. The majority of US banks will soon be nationalized (along with those in
>> the UK and Germany) with very little immediate impact.
>>
>
> The financial heart of the old neoliberal system is effectively bankrupt,
> and can indeed only survive that way, but it has a staggering cost that is
> severaly harming necessary structural reforms.
>
>

The neoliberal system has many hearts.   Banking will be nationalized
through government shareholding but it will look private and the shares will
be bought back within a generation...perhaps within a decade.  It really
doesn't matter.

>
>
>> 7. Unemployment in the US is just reach 10% where it has been sustained
>> for years in other nations like Germany.
>>
>
> Yes, but are you sure it is stopping there, and are you taking into account
> the major statistical manipulations which have undercounted U.S.
> unemployment?
>
>
>>
Unemployment in the US is certainly nothing like what it is in Europe.
Densities in many places are not that high.  The US is comparatively empty.
One can drive for hundreds of miles through forests or through corn fields
yielding crops that go unused.  It will reallocate.  I doubt we are
witnessing permanent high unemployment, but your point is taken.  We'll see.


>
>> 8. Capitalism in Asia and Africa is taking off considerably.  The
>> potential for growth is probably only bound by climate change issues.
>>
>
> Translated: they cannot grow in the old way.
>

Agreed, but they can grow.



>
>
>>
>> 9. There are no serious labor movements in the US, China nor India.
>>
>
> There has been a major labour reform in China, which according to observers
> has greatly strengthened labour, and 70,000 or so major social incidents in
> just one year; India's labour movement is not as weak as you think, it
> depends on the region. India's Congress has won by promising a very active
> social policy, so has China and Obama is labour-friendly. I think we are in
> for a resurgence in the coming years of severe crisis.
>
>

Yes but imagining a Euro-styled union system in China is like imagining
post-capitalism in the US or Canada or Japan.  It might be a dreamy vision,
but the reality we both know is something radically different, and will
remain so. India even more so.

>
>
>> 10. Japan, China and India have no debt and can sustain negative growth
>> for at least a generation.
>>
>
> There is no way that China can sustain negative growth without social
> upheaval, and similarly for India.
>
>
I don't think they have to.  The average wage in China is 1/10 what it is in
the US.  They have huge room to grow...programming jobs, administrative
jobs, medical jobs, engineering jobs, and a million other areas.  Growth
there has only just begun.  Wealth could grow by a factor of 100 in China in
100 years.   Certainly no one wants to go back to Mao suits and candles.


>
>
>> 11. There are no function democracies that are non-market oriented.  There
>> are increasingly few nations that are moving sharply to the left.  Many that
>> have, including Argentina (formerly) and Venezuela (now) are emerging from
>> or headed toward bankruptcy.  Venezuelan foreign reserves are falling faster
>> as a percentage of total than any other nation's.
>>
>
> The whole of Latin America is still moving to the left. Argentina has been
> bankrupt because it followed neoliberal recommendations and has
> substantially recovered under Kirshner, though is now facing new challenges
> with the capitalist meltdown. Brazil has been incredibly successfull with a
> progressive social-democratic agenda, Ecuador's president was just
> re-elected with a landslide ... The U.S. has moved substantially to the left
> as well.
>
>
Argentina went bankrupt because it became socialist.  The same is happening
to Venezuela.  Panama is moving sharply to the capitalist side as is
Colombia and both are thriving.   Mexico may well be the next China.  It is
the US's largest trading partner.  Brazil is successful and will get much
richer.  I agree the moves to the left have occurred...and will strengthen,
but I see neo-capitalism as very consistent with the left as defined in the
US, France, Sweden, New Zealand, etc.



>
>
>> 12. Even with a collapse of the dollar, oil exploding to several hundred
>> dollars a barrel (both of which are reasonably feasible), there is little to
>> suggest that this would be more than a hiccup for markets and capitalism.
>>
>
> ????
>

My point is that I don't see dramatic change coming soon.


>
>
>
>>
>> 13. While the nation state may be in decline for financial reasons, there
>> is no sign (anywhere) if disintegration.  Even where hollow states are the
>> norm, continual processes of rehabilitation suggest that few believe a
>> non-state solution is seriously feasible in the near term with any
>> reasonable standard of living.
>>
>
> I think we will both see hollow states in case of failure, but also a
> resurgence of the state form as key actor in realizing structural reforms.
>
>
I agree, I think.


>
>
>> That said, I think P2P is exciting, vital and an excellent tonic to
>> excesses of capitalism and markets.  However, I am convinced the main issue
>> is climate change.  If there is an Achilles' heel of capitalism, it is
>> climate change.  That places those who are anti-capitalist in a strange
>> place--to advocate most effectively against what they dislike they must
>> align to a degree with what is the greatest threat to humanity overall.  I
>> seriously doubt that in the next 50 years there is much threat to capitalism
>> from any non-coercive process.  If this was even the first wave of a massive
>> crisis 10x the scale of the current, capitalism and markets could easily
>> endure it in most of the globe and probably all of the globe that has
>> significant production.
>>
>
> Strange that you mention 50 years, since that is my own (and that of
> Wallerstein) estimation of a phase transition.
>

50-100 years out is a huge amount of time.  It is impossible to visualize
the sort of technology humans will have.  My guess is, there will still be
corporations, still be brands that are common today, and there will still be
labor markets, capital markets, debt markets, energy markets, etc.


>
>
>
>>
>> For these reasons, I believe decoupling P2P research and advocacy from
>> supposedly associated advocacy against markets would tend to advance the
>> legitimacy and contribution of P2P theory to be more productive in a
>> reasonable time frame.
>>
>
> I'm not sure whom your addressing since the P2P Foundation has never
> advocated against markets.
>
>
I agree and I agree with the position.  Others on this list whom I respect I
think would argue otherwise as a direction for P2P in general rather than
the Foundation.


>
>
>> My own thought is that market anarchism is a realistic evolutionary
>> development for many backwater geographies of capitalism (central England,
>> mountain districts, Central Africa, rural Europe (especially Eastern Europe
>> and Southern Europe)--where it already shows signs of developing into a
>> characteristic peripheral mode of operation.  It will not be relevant in the
>> increasingly powerful city-states/small states of tomorrow like Singapore,
>> Switzerland, Austria, London, Sidney, Jakarta, New York, Shanghai etc.
>> Those areas will continue as highly industrialized market-oriented trading
>> entities with banks, capital, financial markets, etc. for the distant
>> foreseeable future.
>>
>
> Not sure what you mean by market anarchism? In the sense of emancipatory
> market mutualism as advocated by Kevin, or as hyper-exploitative wildcat
> capitalism? Mafia-type economies?
>
> I think both of these...Kevin's of course we hope, but the Mafia capitalism
> of Mexico and Afghanistan too.
>



>
>
>>
>> I am for sustainable wealth by the best means.  I am for as much freedom
>> as is possible.  But I am also for not advocating unrealistic Utopias that
>> simply are not going to matter.
>>
>
>
> P2P modes are not unrealistic utopias, but already existing alternatives
> that function very well in their areas of operation. There is no way that
> neoliberalism can continue to operate in the pre-meltdown logic, and p2p
> will be part and parcel of any structural reform that can potentially lead
> to a new growth cycle.
>

I agree P2P is not unrealistic.  Of course I believe just the obvious.  But
it is worth talking about what is and isn't P2P.

Specifically, I think the socialist blend that seems to pervade a lot of our
discussions is an unrealistically utopian.  P2P can inform a more just
society, bring assets to the disadvantaged, etc. but it is not a replacement
system for markets.


>
>
> Ryan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090528/6855e6d1/attachment-0001.html>